Pepin

Thanks LucasV for the expansion. I am now a little less certain of myself lol. Marco, I feel like you'll figure this dream out with a bit of time.

I am a bit skeptical of there being a sexual meaning to the dream. This might just be because my intepretation would indicate something completely different, but I feel like it is because it is harder to make sense of the dream through the lens of sexuality. You said that a lot of your own experiances are in the analysis, which is likely having a big impact on your interpretation. I would say that it is important to not project your own symbology onto another's dream, beause most symbology tends to be rather personal. There do seem to be more universal symbols, such as the home tending to be a symbol for the mind, but most symbols are more likely to be personal.

I'd suggest reading it from the point of view that you are the mother's child in the dream, and that some part of you is dependant on your mother, while the other part is dissociated from the relationship and the actions. See if that makes any sense. I get the sense from reading your other post that you are rather conflicted about your family, and especially about your mother. I kind of felt as if an internal argument was going on in that post in regards to your childhood.

I have been getting in tune with my mecoystem as of late, and also been reading the book below in combination with many others. This is just to say that this concept is rather new to me, and the self-exploration I've been doing is quite a work in progress. http://www.amazon.com/Self-Therapy-Step-Step-Cutting-Edge-Psychotherapy/dp/0984392777 As far as my experiance, there seems to be various parts with certain personalities, objectives, and ideas on how to act. Perhaps this is just me, but there is locality and physical sensation occuring in my head. It becomes obvious to me when I am projecting myself or some conceptual idea onto one of my parts. I also can tell when parts have come into my concious awareness due to what feels active in my head. Not so sure about that. I'd rather describe it as an open and honest conversation. For instance, there might be a part that suggests you do something violent. This might come as a quick violent impulse that confuses you. Instead of freaking out, be curious, do a rtr with the part, and figure out the positive rational behind the action. Then make it clear why acting out the violent impulse would not lead to the result the part thinks it would. From my experiance, the part is likely to understand and will want to suggest something more helpful. What I am having the most trouble with as far as the concept goes is trusting my parts and letting go. I've lived in the front of my head for most all of my life, and it was so weird to discover that there were all these unexplored areas of my brain. I have rarely ever felt emotion through most of my life, even when I would express emotion. For instance, when my grandfather died when I was 13, I couldn't stop myself physically from crying and being all sad, but I was in my head thinking "why am I crying, I don't care, I don't even really know who this guy is... uh, this this is boring and a waste of time... why don't I just go and do something of actual value", all the while finding what was occuring extremely odd and annoying.

"You can always leave" isn't an argument, it is an invalid statement, which the video provides a lot of evidence for. The potential ability to become less enslaved through escape does not justify enslavement, quite the opposite. I've discovered a large issue with people in general where they don't seem to understand the logical implications of their views. They don't understand the process of invaliding a question or statement. This becomes way too obvious when someone accepts all of the evidence that invalidates their claim or question, but still continue to think that the claim or question makes sense. The best example I can think of at the moment is "God exists".

Thanks for the explanation, quite useful. I feel like this would help out a lot with my brother's dog, who I have been taking care of over the last month or two.

Arius, could you provide more of an explanation as to what you are talking about? I really have no idea what that is a picture of.

I like the audiance. They have a sense of humor.

Science is quite an annoying term because there are many definitions, and many like to claim that concepts that don't adhere to strict definitions or metholodies cannot be considered to be true and ought to be discarded. This kind of argumentation drives me a little crazy, especially in regards to psychology, because we are talking about a complex arrangement of atoms trying to understand another complex arrangement of atoms. Rationally, expecting any sort of physics like accuracy is not quite understanding the mechanisms invovled in the task at hand. Even worse is how scientific minded people are so willing to discredit the effectiveness of placebos. If a placebo works, does this not indicate a biological change in the person, meaning that it did. I think I am ranting.

Lians, I am not really sure how to respond to your post. I could respond to it, but I would't enjoy it very much, and I don't feel like it would be a good use of my time. If you disagree, I urge you to pretend to be Richard Feynman and to dissect the argument you are making through his eyes and or brain.

Charles Mingus Zappa Porcupine Tree Rush Yes! Dream Theatre The Doors Led Zep Miles Davis Hans Zimmer Dio

I recommend watching Stefan's series on The Trial and Death of Socrates, particularly the conclusions. Keep in mind that human psychology unfortunately applies to Socrates, especially given all of the circumstances.

Would the essential claim would be that all math has predictive value when applied to what it describes? If so, the idea would presume that any mathematical concept can be observed in objective reality given an appropriate situation in which the mathematical concept comes into play. If a mathematical concept is true, then the question would be, "where can this concept be observed?". Am I on or off base with what I am saying?

That is going to take a little time for me to process, especially since that is closer to my personal ideas on the matter. Are there any resources on the topic that go into this? Something that explains the other side very well and points out all of the flaws in the opposing argument? I am rather sceptical, mostly because of my eagerness to accept what you are putting forward, and because the opposing arguments make sense to me. In other words: I am confused.

Not so much the case due to some complex reasons that are difficult for anyone to get. There is always some margin of error of plus or minus some value, and all digits beyond such value can't be known because of the known margin of error. To put that in another way, physicists know what they don't know to some digit of accuracy, and anything beyond that is unknown. Using a more and more precise value of pi in physical computations would not imply a more accurate answer as the extra precision of pi would only affect insignigant digitst that aren't known. As the margin of error descreases and more and more digits become significant, then and only then would a more precise value of pi has meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

I was very skeptical about QM, but after a lot of studying, I find that disagreeing with the logical implications of the emperical science is anti-emperical.. Richard Feynman's "Character of Physical Law" and some of Brian Greene's books have really helped me in understanding the field. A good book on the history of physics is also helpful in explaining why the field is so confusing. What most people argue against are a multitude of quantum theories, which are essentially conceptual models that are needed to understand and interpret the data. To disagree is kind of like saying that no interpretation of the data ought to occur... Which is a little crazy to claim, especially since you need to interpret the data/experiment to disprove the any interpretation of the data. Disproving an interpretation of some set of evidence is far different than actually disproving the evidence, as no conceptual model exists in reality, just as no theory exists in reality.

That is quite motivating I must say.

This is provided that you have a concious. As Walter Block likes to point out, the theory is inteneded to be solely predictive, meaning that there can logically be no political conclusion. One way to think about it is to pretend if an evil psychopathic dictactor came across an accurate and predictive economic theory. Would the theory change his moral compass? Would he use this new found knowledge to create a better world?

I think this says something about me, but I saw the mother as a kind and loving figure who was trying her best, and Nina as a girl with little self confidence who got screwed up by other people. Going to have to rewatch this sometime.

I would certainly agree with this. I started using weed initially because I didn't understand it and was curious as to the experiance. My childhood bias was to isolate from partly due to kids always making fun of my speech impediment, and the only people I could tolerate talking to were good teachers who were able to interpret what I was saying and responded to what I was saying in a way that made sense to me. This is only to say I didn't do it for other people and it was something I put a lot of thougt into. I actually wrote a paper for English class in 10th grade, and I didn't try it for another year and a half. I intially started self medicating with it after becoming educated about the drug. I was pretty good with not abusing it until I got into college, which is when constant psuedo seizures occured due to stress. The anti seizure medication did and didn't help. I stopped for a while, and then started smoking a half a week, which was far too much money. It sounds weird, but realizing why I was smoking so much helps with the cure. If anyone is going through something similar, I would suggest a doing a self rtr. Be honest with yourself, and do the research. Badically: think before you act. The last thing you want to have happen is for unresolved childhood shit to get loose.

I would suggest watching the bomb in the brain. I can guess that you have seen it, but watch it again. If you are feeling anxious or hesisitant about rewatching it, then it is really important to understand why and not to rationalize a reason.